|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: R.S.B. It is rare indeed to have all of the adult bred in a wild herd. QDM managers are often satisfied with an 85% breeding rate. Breeding rates and productivity decreased because we have a much lower percentage of mature doe in the herd due to HR. First of all for you to say that the perceived decline in the breeding or reproductive rates is the result of younger does is simply not founded on facts or even logic. All of the data you are comparing is for adult does and quite simply if fewer of the adult does are being bred or their reproductive rates really are declining, as you insist, there is an obvious problem. That problem doesn’t have anything to do with the age of the does in the samples since they were all adult does being compared for each of those years. Furthermore I would have to say there is absolutely no reason for anyone. QDM or not, to be satisfied with an 85% breeding rate for adult does unless they have an out of balance buck/doe ratio and are willing to accept that fact. If they do have an 85% breeding rate for adult does they need to make every attempt toward fixing it because there is an obvious problem with either the buck/doe ratio unless the habitat is very seriously lacking in it ability to support the existing deer population. If the breeding and reproductive rates are really declining in the wildlife management units within Pennsylvania, as you and the other Uninformed Silly People insist, then should we go ahead and fix it or say it is ok as it is? If we are to fix it, even though I don’t think it is declining, then the logical solution would be to have a better adult buck/doe ratio or fix seriously lacking habitat with even fewer deer. To fix the buck/doe ratio we can either increase the number of bucks we keep through the season, reduce the doe population or a combination of the two. Which of those options do you figure to be the best way to fix this perceived problem you insist is looming out there? If you figure the problem is with the habitat then obviously we need to harvest more deer. Is that a direction you think we should take? How you think your fellow Uninformed Silly People will feel about those options for fixing this problem you figure you have disclosed? The number of record buck bucks will be proportional to the number of older bucks in the herd.Until 2007 we were still benefiting from the high deer numbers from 2000 to 2003. It takes 3 years for the full effect of HR to decrease the buck harvest. That is why we harvested fewer 2.5+ buck in 2007 than we did in 2002 ,before any 1.5 buck were saved by ARs. That is nonsense at its finest. If what you just said were true then the buck harvests would not have declined in 2004 and then again in 2005 since we certainly had more deer back in 2001 and 2002 which would have been the three years you claim it takes to decrease the buck harvest. The reason the number of 2 ½ year old bucks harvest declined in 2007 was because we had seriously reduced fawn survival in the spring of 2004 and 2005 when the fawns born died of being born under weight following those two harsh winters. Those fawns that died those two spring should have been the 2 ½ and 3 ½ year old bucks that hunters would have been harvesting last year. But, hunters will never get to harvest deer that died as fawns. R.S. Bodenhorn rsb, fawns arevery few here in clinton county. no doubt about that. but of course our deer numbers are few too. but i sawdoe without fawns a lot this year. out of 6 doe i saw in 1 area last year,only 1 fawn was alive. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
All the dead deer found in PA died from starvation? How is it determine cause of death? Is it possible of some disease might be cause to the death or a injury preventing the animal from feeding?Why is it only deer that are dieing from starvation and not any elk or rabbits that feed the same browse as deer? Elk eat alot more than deer yet do we see any of them dead?
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: sj3837 I checked in 2002 pa killed 165,000 antlered deer. If over 50k were 2.5 years old that would mean 1 out of every three bucks harvested were 2.5 is that right? The 90% harvest rate figure was obviously an exaggeration Alt used to sell ARs. In order to harvest 52,000 2.5+ buck in 2002 we gad to carry over roughly 80,000 1.5 buck from 2001. That would result in a harvest rate for 1.5 buck of around 75% and a B/D ratio of 1:2.1. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
All of the data you are comparing is for adult does and quite simply if fewer of the adult does are being bred or their reproductive rates really are declining, as you insist, there is an obvious problem. That problem doesn’t have anything to do with the age of the does in the samples since they were all adult does being compared for each of those years If what you just said were true then the buck harvests would not have declined in 2004 and then again in 2005 since we certainly had more deer back in 2001 and 2002 which would have been the three years you claim it takes to decrease the buck harvest. The buck harvests in 2004 and 2005 didn't decline because of a decrease in the 2.5+ buck harvest . Those harvests were still higher than in 2002. The decrease in the buck harvest was due to a big decrease in the 1.5 buck harvest which dropped from 112K in 2002 to 63 K in 2005. That decrease was due to increased doe and BB harvests from 2002 to 2004 , not due to a decrease in recruitment due to severe winters. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
As I see it, RSB has produced a perfectly sensible reason to question the appearance, at first,that breeding ratesmay be shiftingwhileBluebird has produced noplausible cause and effect relationship when he claims that AR/HR is to blame for a changethat we cant even be sure is accurate due to issues with the sampling source.
Anyone wishing to be objective has to see that the variations in samplinglocation emphasisare relevant. Second, if we were to assume that breeding rates have taken a 5% decrease, (not proven conclusivley) where is a plausible cause and effect relationship between AR/HR and that "decline"??? |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
As I see it, RSB has produced a perfectly sensible reason to question the appearance, at first, that breeding rates may be shifting while Bluebird has produced no plausible cause and effect relationship when he claims that AR/HR is to blame for a change that we cant even be sure is accurate due to issues with the sampling source. Anyone wishing to be objective has to see that the variations in sampling location emphasis are relevant |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 As I see it, RSB has produced a perfectly sensible reason to question the appearance, at first, that breeding rates may be shifting while Bluebird has produced no plausible cause and effect relationship when he claims that AR/HR is to blame for a change that we cant even be sure is accurate due to issues with the sampling source. Anyone wishing to be objective has to see that the variations in sampling location emphasis are relevant You can not produce on fact or piece of data to support your claim. You are just blindly supporting RSB when you don't even understand the law of averages and how shifts in sample size effect the results. You wonder why your posts generate strong reactions and name calling? It's because you are completely unable to ever be objective when presented with any valid point that may contradict your agenda. When presented with a valid question or arguement, you simply change the subject or present partail facts or distortions. Your bias makes you the one unable to understand the law of averages or any other scientific analysis tool. The conclusive evidence as to your bias is the fact that you have repeatedly claimed several well respected wildife professionals, (quite a fewother than Gary Alt) , biased or claimed they "didn't understand" TWIST AND SPIN ONCE AGAIN!!!  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Simply not true. I challenged you to produce a plausible cause and effect and you camo back with another unsupported theory that happens to suit your agenda. You wonder why your posts generate strong reactions and name calling? It's because you are completely unable to ever be objective when presented with any valid point that may contradict your agenda. When presented with a valid question or arguement, you simply change the subject or present partail facts or distortions. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
My theory is in fact supported by the antlerless harvest data provided in Table 7 of the 2007 AWR. The adult doe in the antlerless harvested dropped from 61% in 2004 to 56% in 2007. During the same period breeding rates dropped from 93% to 88% which is also a 5% decrease. RSB's explanation makes a lot more scientific sense. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: R.S.B. It is rare indeed to have all of the adult bred in a wild herd. QDM managers are often satisfied with an 85% breeding rate. Breeding rates and productivity decreased because we have a much lower percentage of mature doe in the herd due to HR. First of all for you to say that the perceived decline in the breeding or reproductive rates is the result of younger does is simply not founded on facts or even logic. All of the data you are comparing is for adult does and quite simply if fewer of the adult does are being bred or their reproductive rates really are declining, as you insist, there is an obvious problem. That problem doesn’t have anything to do with the age of the does in the samples since they were all adult does being compared for each of those years. Furthermore I would have to say there is absolutely no reason for anyone. QDM or not, to be satisfied with an 85% breeding rate for adult does unless they have an out of balance buck/doe ratio and are willing to accept that fact. If they do have an 85% breeding rate for adult does they need to make every attempt toward fixing it because there is an obvious problem with either the buck/doe ratio unless the habitat is very seriously lacking in it ability to support the existing deer population. If the breeding and reproductive rates are really declining in the wildlife management units within Pennsylvania, as you and the other Uninformed Silly People insist, then should we go ahead and fix it or say it is ok as it is? If we are to fix it, even though I don’t think it is declining, then the logical solution would be to have a better adult buck/doe ratio or fix seriously lacking habitat with even fewer deer. To fix the buck/doe ratio we can either increase the number of bucks we keep through the season, reduce the doe population or a combination of the two. Which of those options do you figure to be the best way to fix this perceived problem you insist is looming out there? If you figure the problem is with the habitat then obviously we need to harvest more deer. Is that a direction you think we should take? How you think your fellow Uninformed Silly People will feel about those options for fixing this problem you figure you have disclosed? The number of record buck bucks will be proportional to the number of older bucks in the herd.Until 2007 we were still benefiting from the high deer numbers from 2000 to 2003. It takes 3 years for the full effect of HR to decrease the buck harvest. That is why we harvested fewer 2.5+ buck in 2007 than we did in 2002 ,before any 1.5 buck were saved by ARs. That is nonsense at its finest. If what you just said were true then the buck harvests would not have declined in 2004 and then again in 2005 since we certainly had more deer back in 2001 and 2002 which would have been the three years you claim it takes to decrease the buck harvest. The reason the number of 2 ½ year old bucks harvest declined in 2007 was because we had seriously reduced fawn survival in the spring of 2004 and 2005 when the fawns born died of being born under weight following those two harsh winters. Those fawns that died those two spring should have been the 2 ½ and 3 ½ year old bucks that hunters would have been harvesting last year. But, hunters will never get to harvest deer that died as fawns. R.S. Bodenhorn rsb, fawns arevery few here in clinton county. no doubt about that. but of course our deer numbers are few too. but i sawdoe without fawns a lot this year. out of 6 doe i saw in 1 area last year,only 1 fawn was alive. I fully agree that many areas have fewer fawns per doe then we had during some of the past years and that reduced fawn numbers per doe in your area is very likely. The only question is why there are fewer fawns per doe. Some want to blame the reduced fawn numbers on hunters having harvested too many does, but in your case you are seeing the does but not the fawns so the problem in you area appears to be something that is only affecting fawn birth or survival rates yet not necessarily affecting adult populations. When you have adult populations but few fawns the obvious places to look for the problem lie in either the does not being bred or the fawns not surviving after they are born. If the does aren’t being bred that is an indication of either a poor buck/doe ratio, extremely poor habitat keeping the does in such poor condition they don’t conceive while being bred or a combination of those two factors. If the does are actually being bred and you still don’t have fawns then the problem is with poor fawn recruitment after the fawns are born. The things most likely to cause poor fawn recruitment are typically environmentally related. Probably the largest factor resulting in poor fawn recruitment, (survival rates), occurs when the bred does don’t have enough high nutrition foods during both the winter and spring. If the does don’t have enough high protein foods during winter and spring they don’t send as much nutrition to the fawns they are carrying and end up used the protein to maintain their own health and weight. When that happens the fawns are carried full term but still born under weight. Fawns that are born under weight have a very low survival rate and normally die of malnutrition within a hours to perhaps a couple of days of being born. Some studies have shown new born fawn mortality as high as 92.9% from just nutritional factors (no predation involved) following years when does had poor winter and spring food supplies. Those lack of food conditions occur when does in the northern tier get locked into the wintering grounds during our long harsh winters. The next factor that is known to cause low fawn recruitment is fawn predation. There is no doubt that many areas have high bear, coyote and bobcat populations. Those are the three most successful predators on fawns though there is documentation of fox and even raccoons feeding on dead fawns and perhaps even killing them when they get the opportunity. But, studies have also proven that where there is suitable habitat fawn predation is relatively low even where predator numbers are high. Even when the fawn mortality studies were being conducted it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine when the predator had killed the fawn verses having simply fed on it after it had died of malnutrition or other natural causes. Fawns are naturally intended to hide from predators until they can out run them but hiding on a forest floor with no under story is difficult at best when nay predator coming along can see the fawns laying there. Virtually anything that stumbles onto a new born fawn kills it so that is one of the reasons why it is important toward deer numbers to have good ground cover on the forest floor. I have also frequently seen young fawns up moving around on their own when they should have been lying hidden on the forest floor. That is most likely because they were hungry and mom hadn’t come to feed them yet. But mom doesn’t come when the fawn is hungry; she comes to feed the fawns when she has a bag load of milk and if she isn’t finding enough food she doesn’t produce enough milk. Those fawns that are up walking around, because they are hungry, instead of hiding have greatly reduced their change of surviving. I have even seen fawns that were not only up walking around but also bleating in an attempt to get mom to come and feed them. If you want to call a bear, coyote or bobcat in all you need to do is get a good fawn bleat call, find a good spot down wind and start working that call during the fawning season. I have done that and had bears darn near in my lap very quickly. It really isn’t something I recommend for those weak or heart because one could get in bigger trouble then they want pretty quickly. The bottom line is there are many reasons why there could be few fawns per doe, but pretty much all of them indicate both an environmental problem and a deer population that is actually working at reducing its own numbers to fit those environmental conditions they are living with. R.S. Bodenhorn |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:16 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.